MANDATORY CONCEAL CARRY INSURANCE: Why it is Unconstitutional under 2A and NYSRPA v. Bruen

Published on October 19, 2022
Duration: 17:55

This video analyzes New Jersey's proposed legislation requiring liability insurance for carrying firearms. Constitutional attorney Mark Smith argues this mandate is unconstitutional, citing a lack of historical precedent, its nature as a tax on a constitutional right, and potential issues with insurance availability. The analysis draws parallels to Supreme Court rulings like NYSRPA v. Bruen and Harper v. Board of Elections.

Quick Summary

New Jersey's proposed mandatory liability insurance for firearm carry is argued to be unconstitutional due to a lack of historical precedent from 1791, as required by NYSRPA v. Bruen. It is also viewed as an unconstitutional tax on a constitutional right, similar to poll taxes, and could prevent carry if insurance is unavailable.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is New Jersey's proposed mandatory liability insurance for firearm carry considered unconstitutional?

The proposed law is argued to be unconstitutional because it lacks a historical analog from 1791, as required by NYSRPA v. Bruen. It is also viewed as a tax on a constitutional right, similar to poll taxes struck down in Harper v. Board of Elections, and potentially makes exercising the right impossible if insurance is unavailable.

What is the significance of the 'historical analog' argument in gun control law?

The 'historical analog' argument, established by the Supreme Court in NYSRPA v. Bruen, means that any modern gun control law must have a comparable historical precedent from around 1791 to be considered constitutional. The burden is on the government to prove this analog.

How does the proposed New Jersey gun insurance law relate to the concept of taxing constitutional rights?

The video argues that mandating liability insurance for carrying firearms functions as a tax on exercising a constitutional right. This is unconstitutional, as demonstrated by Supreme Court rulings like Harper v. Board of Elections, which prohibited poll taxes that restricted voting rights.

What are 'surety laws' and why are they not analogous to mandatory gun insurance?

Surety laws, as discussed in the context of 19th-century Massachusetts, involved posting a bond only if an individual was proven to be a danger to themselves or society. This is distinct from a blanket requirement for all gun owners to purchase insurance, regardless of individual risk.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from The Four Boxes Diner

View all →